My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL49100
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL49100
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:27:11 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 4:51:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981037
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Name
CONTRACTOR CLAIMS
Permit Index Doc Type
GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
~-a- ~ ~ <br />(a) In the Aug. 26 letter it was noted that the contractor <br />was asked to provide the water bars to prevent erosion with <br />the implication that this was in the contract under GBS. This <br />is something that I could not find. Based on what I have <br />found it appears that we need to pay for work that we asked <br />to be completed above and beyond the contract. <br />A letter dated Oct.7 still does not explain where the water <br />bars are specified. <br />(b) I need to know where Magpie Gulch is located before I can <br />respond to the comment made as issue 2 in the Aug. 26 letter. <br />(c) In accordancw with the Oct.7 letter the State will <br />pay $90 for this work <br />(d) Task 8 says that the road will be reestablished and <br />provides for top dressing and gravel. There is no mention of <br />the slope towards the hill or any direction. <br />E2 <br />On July 19 the contractor asked for $1230 to install a ditch <br />at the south end of the project and to build a pad for sorting <br />riprap. <br />I found nothing requiring a pad for sorting riprap. Did we <br />request it? <br />As noted in the Aug. 26 letter the ditch was not built in <br />accordance with the contract henceforth, there should be no <br />additional payment for that work. <br />Per the Aug. 26 letter, I have to agree that no additional <br />payment should be made as the sorting pad was done for the <br />contractor by the contractor. <br />In accordance with the letter dated Oct. 7 the State will pay <br />for this. <br />E3 <br />On July 19 the contractor asked for $5616 for additional <br />sorted riprap. <br />Who ordered this or is it surplus? <br />_ _. _Per=the=Auq.--26-1etter_,Thave-to-agree--that-no-additona3_. -- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.